linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] fork: extend clone3() to support CLONE_SET

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190807160856.GE24112@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Aug 2019 18:08:56 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To:     Adrian Reber <areber@...hat.com>
Cc:     Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
        Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
        Pavel Emelianov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Dmitry Safonov <0x7f454c46@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Radostin Stoyanov <rstoyanov1@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] fork: extend clone3() to support CLONE_SET_TID

On 08/06, Adrian Reber wrote:
>
> @@ -2573,6 +2575,14 @@ noinline static int copy_clone_args_from_user(struct kernel_clone_args *kargs,
>  		.tls		= args.tls,
>  	};
>  
> +	if (size == sizeof(struct clone_args)) {
> +		/* Only check permissions if set_tid is actually set. */
> +		if (args.set_tid &&
> +			!ns_capable(pid_ns->user_ns, CAP_SYS_ADMIN))

and I just noticed this uses pid_ns = task_active_pid_ns() ...

is it correct?

I feel I am totally confused, but should we use the same
p->nsproxy->pid_ns_for_children passed to alloc_pid?

Oleg.